Implementation Demystification - 10 Keys To A Successful P6 Implementation White Paper

Critical Activities
An activity is said to be critical if its duration cannot be extended

without delaying the completion of the project.
Notice that there are three paths through the network:
Path A-C B-D A-D

Length 6 7 8
The duration of the project is determined by the longest path - D

cannot begin until A has been completed. The critical activities are
those which lie on a longest path through the network - here A and D
are critical. Any extension or delay in a critical activity will make
such a path longer still, thereby delaying completion of the project. A
longest path through a network is called a critical path. On the
diagram the critical path is shown in red.
Search
Planning Planet
A new user every 99 minutes... join us
 [H]
 NEWS
 USERS
 ASK PP
 BLOGS
 GROUPS
 FORUM
 POLL
 MARKET
 JOBS
 GUILD
 WIKI
 RATES
 PARTNERS
UPDATE - PP were asked to attend the www.ConstructionCPM.com Conference - wow, what a
great event it was!
Progress Override or Retained Logic

 Login or register to post comments
45 replies [Last post]
Sun, 2010-05-16 03:43
Abdallah Abu Ghaz...
Offline
Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Posts: 11
Groups: Building Works, GPC United Arab Emirates
When updating the project program, what is better to use,as from a Project Management Company, the Progress Override or
retained logic?
Top
 Printer-friendly version
 Send to friend
REPLIES
Mon, 2012-07-23 07:39
#1
Victor Egnora
Offline
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Posts: 8
Groups: Airports & Aviation Projects, GPC United Arab Emirates
Scheduling Calculation mode

For project in progress override mode, it is necessary to revisit the logic as out of sequence working and previous assumed
dependencies would greatly influence as to how the activities would behave in the network. Care must be taken and unrealistic
results must be examined and corrected as necessary.
This can best be demonstrated in the following example. For demonstration purposes consider activities A, B, and C within a
simple network and with the pre-defined dependencies.
Simple network
During the course of implementation activity B started out of sequence while activity A is still in progress.
Network on progress (Retained logic)
Given the same progress data but in different calculation modes, it can be observed that activities behave considerably different
within the network. Using retained logic, the intended sequence was maintained. On the other hand by using progress override
mode, the sequence is no longer followed suggesting that activity C can now finish earlier than activity A. In this case corrective
intervention is required to maintain logic.
Network on progress (Progress override)
Top

Fri, 2011-09-30 08:32
#2
Gary Whitehead
Offline
Joined: 24 Mar 2009

Posts: 1132
Groups: Building Information Modelling,Content Moderators,GPC Applicants, GPC United

Kingdom, Mott MacDonald, Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas, The GrapeVine, Water-Related Works
Thomas: "the goal of building a schedule and using that tool is not to end in a claim, it is to avoid one."
-True. Very true. Other planners, take note.
Rafael: "Even when dates seems like ok and no logic correction is perceived as necessary, not solving issues with progress
override as in the above example can be as bad. ... at times it is not so obvious and here is where real problems might arise."
-Precisely. I'm still not clear Thomas on what your criteria are for those OOS which do not need to be corrected, and how you go
about assessing this, and how much time this assesment takes per OOS event vs just correcting it in the first place?
Thomas: "Your continued assumption that all logic is wrong just because it is reported on the out of sequence list is a bad
assumption to make."
-Wrong. The logic describes the sequence that MUST happen. If something is on the OOS report, it is becuase the actual progress
defies this. So either the logic is wrong, or the actual progress is wrong. The very best you could say is that although the logic is
wrong, this has no material impact on the rest of the schedule now, and will not do so in the future. And as I've suggested above,
the amouint of analysis I'd need to undertake to satisfy myself that this was true would be a longer task, and more susceptible to
error on my part, than just fixing the link. -This is why I'm keen to understand how you kake that assesment as I'm guessing you
must have a quicker way of doing it?
Thomas: "A project that size should need no more than 2 or 3 people to keep up to date to serve the projects needs for
estimating and forecasting time. When you throw the "All out of sequence must be fixed" stupidness into the mix, it is now a 10
man team just to be key punching monkeys."
-Are you exagerating here, or do you really get so many OOS that fixing them all would triple, quadruple or even quintuple your
workload? Out of say a thousand activities progressing in an update period, how many of them would you expect to typically
appear on an OOS report for one of your projects? And how many of those OOS events would you typically have to fix in order to
have the quality of schedule you are happy with?
Thomas: "Retained logic does not ignore logic, it honors the logic"
-It does neither. Retained logc effectively replaces the logic entered by the user which has now proved to be incorrect with
another set of "virtual" logic which is influenced by the original logic, fits with the actual progress to date, and may or may not be
a true reflection of the future sequence.
Top

Thu, 2011-09-29 23:15
#3
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 23
Groups: None
You keep showing the same very simplified example and I never said that none of the out of sequence should be fixed.
I said assuming that all out of sequence is wrong or has to be fixed is wrong and a bad assumption.
AACEI knows more than you or me and I would not argue with them when they have allot more expertise and information and
case studies to back up their assertions. Also, I know for a fact that the majority of the persons that wrote the recommended
practice documents are claims experts that are well aware of all the games people play with schedules.
When schedules are used for claims it is more common to use a performance baseline or as-built baseline. Actual dates and
progress are compared to those baseline types as a basis for evaluating contractor performance.
However, the goal of building a schedule and using that tool is not to end in a claim, it is to avoid one. If there is a claim at the
end of a project, then the managers didn't do their job. As I said before, only consultants and lawyers win when their is a claim,
especially for large projects.
Top

Thu, 2011-09-29 21:48
#4
Rafael Davila
Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3554
Groups: Spider Project Team

Even when dates seems like ok and no logic correction is perceived as necessary, not solving issues with progress override as in
the above example can be as bad. 135 days of float on Design activity is beyond comprehension, at times it is not so obvious and
here is where real problems might arise.
That there is no need to fix all out-of-sequence logic when retained logic [the other option] is used as suggested by the AACEI in
their Recommended Practice No. 29R-03, I do not agree. I have serious reserves about their recommendation with regard to
possible claims you want to present using a modeled procedure after the facts, following their recommendation might get you into
trouble.
Schedules are not used exclusively for managing the job but also as a claim tool.
Top

Thu, 2011-09-29 15:23
#5
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 23
Groups: None
Honoring logic means that the software is adhering to CPM as specifications require.
Your continued assumption that all logic is wrong just because it is reported on the out of sequence list is a bad assumption to
make.
Not sure what my comments have to do with P6's capability with regard to number of activities or ability to handle shifts.
I was commenting on the fact that managing very large projects, that have a stupid spec requiring all out of sequence to be fixed,
only turns the schedule into a logistical and administrative nightmare. A project that size should need no more than 2 or 3 people
to keep up to date to serve the projects needs for estimating and forecasting time.
When you throw the "All out of sequence must be fixed" stupidness into the mix, it is now a 10 man team just to be key punching
monkeys.
Have you ever managed a schedule with thousands or even hundreds of activities active in any given update period?
Top

Fri, 2011-09-23 16:19
#6
Rafael Davila
Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3554
Abdallah,
If you choose retained logic, progress override or any other option available in a few software any of these can be as goo/bad
choice on individual out-of-sequence occurrences.
At times retained logic will delay OOS (out of sequence) activities and all their successors more than necessary. Even if not on the
critical path retained logic might have a delaying effect on a non critical path activities and if people at the jobsite do not notice
the error will follow the schedule at the cost of wasting valuable float. At times progress override will represent a change in plans
and no adjustment in logic might be perceived as not necessary. With the OOS events that start and finish within a single update
period also no adjustment in logic might be perceived as not necessary. Some people do not fix these occurrences.
If you are working for under a PM type of contract you have some responsibility to all parties, to the owner as well as to the
contractors and subcontractors. The responsibility is there no matter of PM at no risk. Good management of available float is as
important of management of the critical path.
If in the future there is a claim then not correcting OOS events and disclosing the revision of logic in due time might invalidate
contemporaneous methods.
"The Contemporaneous Method hinges on the principle that in order to determine the impact of delaying events, the status of the
project must be established at the time those events occurred. In essence, the schedule needs, first, to be updated at the time of
the delay and, second, to be updated to incorporate any planning changes to coincide with the contractor’s plan for pursuing the
work. The goal of this method is to develop a freeze-frame picture of the project—identifying the delaying event, the impact of
the delay, and the plan to complete the remaining work at the time the delay occurred."
If the contract call to solve delay issues using contemporaneous methods and you do not fix all logic this might hide some or all
delay impact. The Owner or any cotractor or subcontractor might place a claim against you for negligence on your responsibility
on keeping the schedule valid as an analysis tool.
It does not matter which algorithm you choose, anyway at a click of the mouse you can change it. It also matters that the logic is
valid and that the CPM can be used as a claim tool.
Thomas,
Retained logic does not ignore logic, it blindly honors a logic that might no longer be a true representation of the schedule, same
as project override it is a computation based on an assumption that is not always true.
20k to 30k activity limits was no issue even for already obsolete software such as P3, for many modern software managing over
100k activity jobs and portfoliso is also not an issue. Here at PP some label P6 as rubbish. It is notorious for not being able to
model true shift work, a very common task, it even has some limitation on the number of characters for activity ID which for
some create issues when bringing a new job to a portfolio.
As a test on how good/bad it is at modeling shifts you can try the following monstruous one activity job.
Activity 1
500cm rock excavation
Resource 1 production 10cm/hr and works Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday 10hrs/day
Resource 2 production 15cm/hour and works on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday 10 hrs/day
If activity starts on Monday:
Monday =>> Resource 1 will produce 100 cm
Tuesday =>> Resource 1 will produce 100 cm
Wednesday =>> Resource 1 will produce 100 cm
Thursday =>> Resource 2 will produce 50 cm in about 3 hours
Activity will take 3 days 3 hours.
If activity starts on Wednesday :
Thursday =>> Resource 2 will produce 150 cm
Friday =>> Resource 2 will produce 100 cm in about 7 hours
Activity will take 2 days 7 hours.
If your software is not capable of modeling the above, simple shift work on a single activity and you have a need for such
models then you are using the wrong tool. Every time the activity is delayed, the distribution of work is shifted, when you have
many such activities and work on different hour shifts, different days it can become quite complicated. Distributing work by hand
is nuts.
A more interesting shift modeling occurs when your activity crew and their productivity varies with seasons, scheduling for shifts
is very common.
http://youtu.be/ouuUZW2kHC0
When our specs mandate for Primavera products we have issues with modeling of shift work just for a start. At the very beginning
it also creates issues with the limitation on a single WBS dictionary while in Spider Project we have unlimited, with Spider Project
we can use our own WBS required for our portfolios reports and still accommodate for the Owner requirements, a very
democratic approach. We find P6 too little for our modeling needs.
It has been documented by others how poor P6 is at resource leveling. A discussion on this theme alone would take a separate
thread. Just look at the Aurora reference.
http://www.stottlerhenke.com/products/aurora/Turnaround/2009-10-
01_Aurora_WhitePaper_Turnaround.pdf
Same as Aurora Spider Project have the option for algorithm that look for optimal schedules based on project duration. But
optimal schedule is not always the shortest duration schedule, Spider project recognizes this argument and provides for alternate
resource leveling algorithms that will not look for the shortest durtaion schedule but for other prioritization options that might
adapt to other needs as well. When our projects are in schedule we use the alternate methods that keep some prioritization
constant from update to update, we resort to the optimization schedules that override these prioritization when probabilites of
project finishing on time are low. I do not know if Aurora provides for other algorithms that do not look for shorted duration
schedule but we find the proritization implementation of P6 poor.
The list of advanced functionalities available in other software but not in P6 is very long.
Here some consider Asta PP and Spider Project to be superior to any Primavera products, and yes others live and die for
Primavera. MSP is my less favorite but some live and die for it, same as for any other. If you are happy with P6 I have no
objection same as if with any other software.
Regards,
Rafael
Top

Thu, 2011-09-22 18:11
#7
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 23
Groups: None
Your background is impressive and does not change my opinion. Project Management is not a sideline and just because someone
has an engineering degree does not by default mean they are expert at PM skills or Project Controls. Project Management is as
much a specialty as Electrical Engineering or Civil Engineering. If it wasn't, then you could delegate those responsibilities to your
secretary.
You could also try starting an email exchange with Ralph Wagner, who wrote one of the documents you quoted, and get his take
on the issue of progress override vs. retained logic.
Based on my exchange with him, managing a project schedule that has 20 to 30k activities with a spec that requires out of
sequence correction, has created a management problem with only marginal gains in data quality that are not proportional to the
effort required.
Retained logic does not ignore logic, it honors the logic, and that is a fact you need to start recognizing. Just because sometihng
is reported as out of sequence does not mean that retained logic is ignoring logic. That is a totally incorrect statement.
Also, the only products that PMs understand from my experience, are MS Project type of tools. Professional tools like Primavera
require training and experience to use and manage the database for bigger than small projects.
Top

Wed, 2011-09-21 11:55
#8
Rafael Davila
Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3554
Thomas,
Of course progress override violates CPM logic, same as retained logic it is a computation based on an assumption that is not
always true. Contrary to your practice here the responsibility of the planner is to update schedules as close to reality as can
be and not to take shortcuts, because they are on the safe side with regard to projected duration is no excuse to provide poor
estimates. Here we take the time to check our updates activity by activity same as we do on our estimates.
We also have a school of technology but it is separate of the Engineering School where I got my BSCE, at MIT where I got my
MSCE I don't think they have something equivalent, separate from the Engineering School. I got my degree in 1978 when Project
Management as a specialization was on its infancy, now I don't think MIT provides for a PM concentration within the Civil
Engineering Department anymore. I got my PE taking the same exam the engineers in many USA states are required, it is graded
in the US and only pass or no pass grading is issued, therefore the states cannot adjust their curve and makes it uniform among
the states and the territories.
I no longer work as a PM, 30 years was enough, I am doing the easy work; estimates, some scheduling and submittal reviews
and even prepare working drawings to assist the field personnel in their interpretation of the drawings. Rarely I use my PE seal,
not even to certify inspections as when I was doing inspection work a few years ago the PEs under my supervision were the
designated inspectors of record as required by our laws where only certified engineers can certify structural works. I am not a
professional scheduler as I do not make a living on it, perhaps an estimator, and I am happy at this time of my career I am doing
the easy things, finally. As you can see I already adopted your definition of professional scheduler, one that makes his living on
doing it.
At MIT scheduling was considered a tool among many others such as operations research, investment analysis methods,
management courses (a few available at the Sloan School of Management), legal courses by practicing engineer-lawyers from
Harvard School of Law and a few other options, it was a program that accepted students from all engineering specializations as
project management is performed by all disciplines. I applied to Berkley graduate school of engineering and was accepted and
picked up MIT as it was closer to home, with an MIT club of Puerto Rico that helped with adapting to a new city.
Here scheduling is done by actual PMs that have no problem understanding whatever software is presented to them, so using the
tool is not an issue, what makes the difference are the individuals and their understanding of the process to be modeled. Usually
our civil works PMs are required a PE with empahsis on experience, our PMs are required to work on estimates at times of low
volume of work, it is considered good for the PM to be in charge to be the estimator and the scheduler of his work, in the few
occasions time will allow. Here professional schedulers, those that make a living mostly from scheduling can be counted by a
single hand as they are on low demand.
Of course we can agree to disagree, it is obvious we have opposing points of view.
Best regards,
Rafael
Top

Tue, 2011-09-20 23:12
#9
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011

Posts: 23
Groups: None
Lol, I did not make one derogatory comment and for you to suggest i did is out of place.
Your primary language is also not important to me nor do I consider it relevant to this discussion.
Your suggestion that some one needs a license to be considered a professional is also flat out wrong. I am paid money to
estimate and I am paid money to produce schedules, for a living. That makes me a professional and I have done it for 20+
years. Anyone that does scheduling or estimating as a sideline, is not a professional at those skill sets and is just performing a
task. Last I checked you don't need a license to be a professional singer, or American Football player, or allot of other positions in
life referred to as "professional". If you are paid money to do something and it is part of your core business services, then
claiming to be a professional is more than justified, in my opinion and many others.
Professional schedulers for example produce cost and resource loaded schedules that are used for the basis for determining
earned progress and payment requests. Or to defend a claim for delay or damages. These are things builders have to do to
make money or to recover lost money due to bad circumstances. I have a 4 year Bachelor of Science degree in building
technology from Purdue University. Also carry professional certifications from PMI and AACE that prove I have the skills. Besides
the fact of actually doing the work and making a living and justifying the value of my work by helping customers mitigate risk and
recover money.
Quoting academic theory is nice and all and not always relevant to how the real world works. When my customer's customer
holds a pay request up due to an issue, schedule or otherwise, getting paid is pretty dang important. Easy to say it isn't when
you're not the one counting on the pay request to pay your people and keep your business going. Again, I never said it was the
only thing, I did say it was one of the most important.
As a professional that delivers cost and resource loaded schedules to meet Local, County, State and Federal requirements, and
help my customers get paid, I stand by my opinion that progress override violates the CPM calculation by ignoring logic and under
estimates delays and float usage.
I do what it takes to satisfy my customer's customer and meet the specified requirements while minimizing the effort so that I do
not overbill my customer for the product I produce.
Like I said before, we can agree to disagree.
Top

Tue, 2011-09-20 21:30
#10
Rafael Davila
Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3554
Gary,
Look at my sample job, I added only one activity to make it more complex. This activity has a SS+60d link to Mobilization Activity,
can be anything, an insurance, rental of trailers or whatever.
The first figure displays the updated schedule as of DD at end of September, using retained logic. Because the SS link between
the new activity and Mobilization activity is still active the algorithm delayed the start of the new activity to DD+60d even when
the new activity started before the DD. Kind of hidden but if your software disclose out-of-sequence at the schedule run it can be
identified.
The second figure shows an updated schedule where mobilization was stopped due to late delivery of new office trailers or
whatever other reason you can imagine. Still the update works as the previous update, Mobilization activity is still active the
algorithm delayed the start of the new activity to DD+60d even when the new activity started before the DD. Still kind of hidden
but if your software disclose out-of-sequence at the schedule run only the out of sequence event will not be identified. This is
common on obsolete software such as P3 and SureTrak that cannot disclose out-of-sequence events still active from previous
updates, not sure about P6. Here you need software capable of filtering out-of-sequence still active that started on a previous
update to get a better understanding of what is going on.
The last figure shows the last update using progress override which in this particular scenario is a 100% fit of actual conditions.
If you are using software incapable of filtering disclosing previous updates out-of-sequence then in order to make sure there are
no active links to previous out-of-sequence events then you got some problem, how best to detect under this software limitation I
do not know. Ron Winter has a software that makes up for the P6 missing table on links, perhaps there he identifies broken links
in a similar way Spider Project do. It is not going to be direct solution, will require some transfer of data for every change in your
what-if analysis while correcting logic but better something than nothing.
If the out-of-sequence activity starts and finishes within the same updating period it will not delay the projected schedule after
the DD. If your average activity duration is two weeks I would guess two in three out-of-sequence occurrences falls within a
single update period and one in three in between two or more periods. Still if you do not fix logic if in a future you have a claim
you will not be able to use contemporaneous methods as adjusting logic after the facts invalidate these methods. Do not count
the other side will not question wrong logic, a check for out-of-sequence logic will be first SOP to discredit your schedule, in good
software is at a single click of the mouse.
Mike Testro,
If you are around I would like you to paste the out-of-sequence options available in Asta PP. I believe they added a third option,
an hybrid of the classical two. It might be a better approximation than the classical, perhaps it makes it harder to detect the out
of sequence if you do not take a look at the functionality that identifies out-of-sequence but maybe it gives you a clue that will hit
the bulls eye more often.
For us, because we understand the logic in our jobs it is easier to identify the activity that is creating the out-of-sequence flag and
solve the out-of-sequence logic than finding out why hundreds of activities are delayed without making any sense. The people on
the site need the correct dates on critical and non-critical activities, they coordinate their work based on these dates.
Abdallah,
This is the nature of the software and the modeling needs, get into the issues, do not avoid them. Murphy is always around and
while the behavior of out-of-sequence logic is not always as in my example it might happen at the worst moment.
Solving out-of-sequence logic can save you a lot of headaches, in one of my referenced projects it took us less than 15 minute to
correct the logic, it delayed one week the payment application submission because it was agreed to be submitted at the project
weekly meeting so all parities after the meting can verify on site and place all the required signatures of approval instead of
moving the document from office to office. If we had corrected on time the out-of-sequence logic the application would have
been submitted a week before.
Best regards,
Rafael
Top

Tue, 2011-09-20 13:05
#11
Rafael Davila
Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3554
Thomas,
You are taking it too personal, it is not about me nor about you, it is about doing the right thing and debate using the facts for
the best interest of all. This is supposed to be a friendly debate, you got to accept the challenge without going into personal
attacks. Anyway I will not fall into the error of returning defamatory statements.
There is no such thing as professional schedulers nor estimators, this is not a profession per-se, scheduling is performed by
different professionals as well as many others without a professional license.
Here you do not need a license to practice estimating nor scheduling. Plumbers and electricians are required a formal training on
vocational schools and the passing of a test but they are not given status of professional, they are referred as certified
electricians. In some trades the professional title does not apply while in others the mere fact of making a living performing the
trade can label you as a professional, like a professional baseball player. What are the California requirements to label you as
Professional Estimator and Professional Scheduler, similar to that of a baseball player or to a plumber? Which are the formal
education pre-requisites, vocational school, a Phd or none?
Fixed price is synonym to lump sum contracts, both terms are well known in the construction business, I work my estimates on a
per hour basis on fixed price jobs; take it easy, breath and keep composure, if there was a misunderstanding there is no need to
get into the personal. As many in this international forum my first language is other than English, at home English as well as
Spanish are officially recognized and you can do business on any of these two, my first language is Spanish.
Getting paid is important but it is not all, even a first year management student knows about Maslow's hierarchy of needs and
how the basic needs move up and down in importance. If you are satisfied with your pay then other needs surface, among them
self-actualization. If you are at the bottom of the pyramid and you are not paid enough then I can understand in your case it is all
about getting paid, but this is not my case.
Always do your best.
Best regards,
Rafael
Top

Mon, 2011-09-19 21:29
#12
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 23
Groups: None
Sounds to me like you are over billing your customer then. If your doing work on fixed price, then you are wasting un-needed
effort on your part.
Attempting to find the "true" schedule, or "true" estimate is an oxymoron. Like I said, estimates are measured by tolerances and
variances. That is not to say you don't check your work or do your best to make sure you have not missed anything. It is to say
that you have a finite amount of time in which to do the work and deliver.
You cannot possibly be working for a GC if you think it's not about getting paid. That is what it is all about. If you don't get paid,
you don't make money. Last I checked, people are in business to make money. That is not to suggest that doing shoddy work
takes precedence over making money. It is to suggest that we don't spend more than we have to. Spending costs money and
the more money the schedule costs the less money you make.
Never said that fixing out of sequence logic is difficult, only that it is time consuming and I personally don't work for free. My
customers always appreciate that I don't spend allot of time and still get the job done and they get paid.
Your suggestion that anyone not doing what you do is failing is not appreciated. Personally I only care about what my customers
think since they pay my bills.
So basically what you are saying is that you are not a professional scheduler?
As a professional Estimator and Scheduler, I can tell you that they are not the same, what so ever.
Out of curiosity, do you estimate your jobs the way you would plan them to facilitate cost and resource loading?
Top

Mon, 2011-09-19 16:23
#13
Rafael Davila
Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3554
The more complicated the sample job is the more difficult it is to see what the out-of-sequence occurrence did to
unsuspecting activities down along the out-of-sequence impacted path, can be hundreds of activities. Without the
software the field personnel would get lost with the complex relations they cannot see, with the software they will still get lost as
most of them do not understand the software.
 When out-of-sequence is not "fixed" by whatever algorithm you selected it shall be fixed by correcting the logic. As a matter of fact
on a claim in court the logic if not fixed on time can be questioned and a late fix considered as self serving.
 When out-of-sequence is "fixed" by whatever algorithm you selected it shall still be validated by correcting the logic as a good
scheduling practice. It is wrong to say the algorithm fixed the logic, it just happens that the dates match but the out-of-sequence
link is still broken.
We will do what is necessary to validate the schedule and get true logic and dates, not distorted "insignificant" dates as they
are integral part of the whole, it is not only about getting paid. We never include micro-management activities in our schedules,
we do not have issues on managing micro out-of-sequence wrong logic, we manage relevant activities, relevant out-of-sequence
logic that must be fixed, in our schedules everything is relevant. We do planning for the short term as well as for the long term,
correct dates are relevant along all job duration.
We consider good practice to fix the logic in due time, no matter if required or not by the contract specs, we find it easy to fix out
of sequence logic because we understand why logic was broken and how to fix it. We do not use "schedulers by telemetry", even
if the planning is done by the PM the scheduler must live the job, is not a foreigner to the site, it is common for our schedules be
done by the PM itself or the estimator that worked the estimate.
I only schedule jobs for which I performed the job estimate. I make my living doing estimates and shop drawings review for a few
general contractors doing work at risk, scheduling is a sideline I love to do. When my clients call me for a schedule it is for a job I
worked the estimate, for work they did the estimate themselves they do the schedule themselves.
Top

Mon, 2011-09-19 15:01
#14
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 23
Groups: None
Your continued arguing that the schedule has to be micro-managed to be useful is misplaced and is an attitude that does not
survive in a for profit organization.
So unless a specification requires all out of sequence to be fixed, it is wrong to suggest that a schedule is wrong when a scheduler
only fixes the most important of those sequences. This is especially true when all those issues are mute at the end of the job.
Your example is over simplified and only applicable for a capital program level of planning. I can easily provide an example where
progress override fails, as I already have.
More often than not work is performed out of sequence to mitigate delays caused by a stakeholder and as such, most delays
forecast as a result of using retained logic are more accurate more often than not.
As I said before, we can agree to disagree and as a person working for a hard bid contractor, I will do only what is absolutely
necessary to get acceptance and pay app processed.
Top

Mon, 2011-09-19 14:50
#15
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 23
Groups: None
Since the contractor owns the schedule via means and methods, it is not wrong to say that only the most important out of
sequence needs to be fixed. Just because a GC starts Framing, Rough-Ins, Insulation and Drywall with slight lags, when it was all
planned FS, does not mean I have to fix anything. Ultimately the logic is still correct that I have to finish Framing before I can
finish Rough-Ins, and finish Rough-Ins before finishing Insulation and I have to finish Insulation to finish Drywall. Using retained
logic just provides a more conservative estimate for a finish date, not a wrong one, and does so with out the scheduler needing to
spend any time attempting to model actual progress. Using progress override that will ignore that logic and potentially show
drywall finishing before framing is not a good idea.
If you work for owners, insisting that all out of sequence has to be fixed is a great way to increase billings. When working for a
hard bid contractor, it's a good way to price yourself out of a job.
Not sure what sector you work for, and on every job I have ever been on, the owner causes a delay either by incomplete design,
change to design, slow RFI response, slow submittal approval, etc., etc., etc. This is not to suggest that GCs do not cause delay.
It is to suggest that owners more often than not are the instigator of delay. Also that GCs will perform work out of planned
sequence in an attempt to mitigate delay.
I stand by my opinion that retained logic is by far the better option, and that the assumption that all out of sequence issues need
to be fixed is false.
Top

Mon, 2011-09-19 14:32
#16
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 23
Groups: None
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
However, interest rates are so low, that banks are looking for any reason possible to deny loans. Why? Cause 4% or 3.5% is not
enough interest for them to be bothered to loan money.
Again, scheduling being a form of estimating means that all parties involved have to be willing to negotiate in good faith and
understand that estimates are measured in allowable tolerances and variances. IE, as long as both parities are comfortable with
the means and methods being used to generate the estimate of time impact, then parties can settle delays as they go and avoid
un-needed confrontation later.
Owners using the schedule as a means of holding up payment is out of line almost all the time. Why? Because as long as the
owner agrees with the cost loading, and the percentages earned are agreed, then the pay request should go through because the
forecast has little or nothing to do with that pay request amount. Especially when post recovery changes usually increase the
amount earned slightly depending on how general condition costs are loaded.
From my experience, owners will do what they think they can get away with and do not consider the law or ethics all the time.
Top

Mon, 2011-09-19 12:49
#17
Rafael Davila
Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Posts: 3554
Fixing all wrong logic no matter if wrong by error, by a change in plans or an out of sequence event is relevant if you use your
schedule to manage your job. If the CPM schedule is irrelevant to manage your job you got to manually take care of all the
details. It is a misconception that only critical activities do matter. It is not true that consumption of float is free and has no
impact on your probabilities of success.
Retained logic algorithm does not only delays the out of sequence activity, by virtue of delaying the out-of-sequence activities it
delays all its successors down the road. It might distort not only a single activity but a full chain of activities making it impossible
to the field personnel to correctly manage their job. If for some schedulers correcting the out of sequence is difficult just imagine
how difficult it is going to be for the field personnel to manually correct logic on a complex job.
In my sample job I could fix the out of sequence occurrence by simply adjusting the broken link properties from a FS link to a
double link that will schedule the end of mobilization after 25% of design is projected to complete. I do not see any rocket science
on this adjustment is very easy. What can be very easy to solve using the software tool can be difficult if not impossible for the
field personnel to manually figure out the correct dates for all impacted activities down the road. If working under limited
resources the manual correction difficulty will be exponentially increased.
Easy, no broken links anymore.

Best regards,
Rafael
Top

Mon, 2011-09-19 08:57
#18
Gary Whitehead
Offline
Joined: 24 Mar 2009
Posts: 1132
Groups: Building Information Modelling,Content Moderators,GPC Applicants, GPC United

Kingdom, Mott MacDonald, Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas, The GrapeVine, Water-Related Works
Thomas:
"Specifications do not require out of sequence removal because it is understood that by using retained logic, most of the out of
sequence issues are non-issues."
-This must be wrong, surely. You've said yourself in previous posts that you fix the "important" out of seqence issues. But
you seem to be saying here that since most are not "important" enough to need fixing, the entire concepet of fixing them at all
should not be covered under specification? Why not? Most activities are not delayed by the client, but the spec will still cover
such eventualities. mosrt delayed activities won't delay the project, but again the spec covers that situation. Most OOS working
will not cause the forecast to bre wrong, but surely the spec should cover what to do when it does?
"Why you and others are so hell bent on making project schedules into full time efforts for the smallest of projects is beyond me."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your central argument seems to be that planners should use retained logic and correct OOS logic
only in the minority of cases where it actually impacts on the forecast. Any less gives a poor schedule, and any more is a waste of
time & money?
Perhaps it's down to the methodology I use, but to my mind the vasty majority of the time spent in correcting an OOS logic is
used to identify and then understand them. Actually ammending the logic is pretty trivial in comparison. So by the time you have
spent enough effort to get enough information to be able to decide if an OOS is "important" enough to bother correcting, the
amount of effort you'll save in not bothering is fairly trivial. Still a saving, but not a big one IMO. And certainly not enough of a
difference that not following your advice would make "project schedules into full time efforts for the smallest of projects"
And of course the other issue is how do you define an "important" OOS? Particularly if specs are silent on the issue? Is it just any
OOS that causes an incorrect early date vs the current schedule? how about float calcualtion? free and/or total? How about in
progress OOS's that look "fine" now but have the potential to screw the forecast at the next update if not corrected?
Again maybe it's just the way I do things, but it would seem to me that in the time you would spend considering all of the above
for each OOS, you could have just as easily fixed the OOS regardless. It's cleaner and less risky and just makes for a higher
quality schedule.
Top

Sun, 2011-09-18 19:24
#19
Rafael Davila
Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3554
My first real encounter with the issues that not solving out of sequence events might backfire happened on a job at the worst
moment. In this job there was a clause for the reduction and even reimbursement of retainage from 10% to 5% after 50%
completion if the job was on track and schedule forecast an on time delivery.
But our General Contractors are no fools, prior to submitting the schedule as part of the billing process, it was delayed a week in
order to present a schedule with revised logic that represent the true plans, the true status of the job.
Similar to my prior example in this debate some activities initially were scheduled to happen without any overlap as they were not
critical at the moment. As the schedule progressed the out of sequence event made the scheduled activities artificially critical
causing the schedule to project a delay when in reality we were ahead of schedule.
It is very difficult, perhaps impossible, when using the traditional TIA that out of sequence will happen but if using monthly
updates for a Widows Analysis it might distort the analysis. Still even when you are required to use TIA it solve only issues on
EOT, it does not solve issues on concurrent events. If you want to use the Windows Analysis in a clam to solve the issues on
concurrent events, using as a reference your monthly updates, it got to be without out of sequence events. Solving out of
sequence events latter on and changing logic in your favor latter on is self serving, is a no no in contemporaneous methods.
My call for doing the right thing on time is not a capricious call is based on a real situation we had on a $10M job, at 50% this
makes a reduction in retainage from $500,000.00 to $250,000.00 to be reimbursed at that moment and not after finishing the
job. This amount of money represents a substantial change in the cash flow of the contractor, a substantial change in their
working capital. No matter how good or bad the economy is doing it is not about the interest to be paid on their limited credit line
is beyond this. Under this economy the interest rates are so low that even the federal reserve interest is close to 0%, it does not
justify delaying for month or years the payment to the General Contractor under the reasoning that the interest is so low it will
have no impact on the contractor business.
Here it is a frequent argument that Federal, State and Municipal governments "improve" their cash flow at the expense of the
contractors, an unfair practice. Frequently they will look for any excuse to delay payments as if Prompt Payment Act is written in
the air. Federal Government is notorious for delaying payments for any missing comma, even if there is controversy they should
fix the amount in controversy and make the payment for the uncontested amount, but they do not, even when common law is
that they should pay for the uncontested amount on time. I have no doubt some malicious reviewers do not allow the general
contractor to make the schedule adjustments for the sole benefit of their clients at the expense of the contractor. Big fish eats
small fish. Do not give them any excuse.
Top

Sun, 2011-09-18 18:45
#20
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 23
Groups: None
For the record, Fantasy Island does not exist, just so you know.
Specifications do not require out of sequence removal because it is understood that by using retained logic, most of the out of
sequence issues are non-issues.
Why you and others are so hell bent on making project schedules into full time efforts for the smallest of projects is beyond me.
All you are doing is making it harder for owners to get the best pricing possible on their projects because most GCs will refuse to
pay for a scheduler and just make their PMs do it and that will only make the situation worse.
Fact is that retained logic has been specified on every project I have been on for the last 20 years, and all of those projects came
to a successful completion, despite the schedule being "wrong" as you suggest.
As I said before, scheduling is a form of estimating and by default is always wrong, just like a cost estimate is always wrong.
Estimate accuracy is measured by means of variances and allowances. For a one year project, a forecast that is accurate to ~+/-
1 month is more than good enough. That accuracy will improve the closer to the end of the project you get. IE, when you get to
50% complete, ~+/- 2 weeks would be the expectation.
Trying to make the schedule perfect is a pointless exercise. Better, in this case for sure, is the enemy of good enough. Altruisum
sounds good and most always fails when someone attempts to implement it. Why? Altruism is a state of perfection and nothing
in this world is perfect.
Schedules help guide projects, they do not determine project success. People that manage the project and make decisions
determine project success.
Owners come at the schedule from a perspective of attempting to prevent the contractor from justifying delays. Contractors
come at the schedule from a perspective of quantifying delay and protecting their margin.
It's all about mitigating risk and exposure.
Top
Sun, 2011-09-18 18:40
#21
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 23
Groups: None
I totally fail to see how using a method of schedule computation that COMPLETELY IGNORES CPM LOGIC, and hides / under
estimates delays, is a good or best choice. Progress Override wiill completely ignore all CPM logic where out of sequence occurs.
Retained logic will honor all CPM logic and it is up to the user to fix the most important out of sequence events.
As long as a specification requires the use of CPM, then technically progress override cannot be used because that method
ignores CPM logic.
http://www.pmsite.com/Forum/tabid/159/aft/958/Default.aspx
My recommendation to any hard bid GC that gets a spec requiring the use of progress override is that they explain this is not their
preferred means and methods and that the GC is going to provide the schedule using both methods.
Yes, Owners attempting to specify how the schedule is computed is easily an infringement upon means and methods and thus out
of line. The owner owns the project and the money that funds the project. With regard to the schedule, float might belong to
the project, the GC owns the schedule and has every right to mange said schedule via their established means and methods.
Top

Sun, 2011-09-18 18:11
#22
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 23
Groups: None
I think you are missing the point here. This is not a long term trend and no one expects this to be a long term trend. It is a
short term trend that has come about due to the current status of the economy since 2008. I have worked with the same GC for
10 years and this is the first time we have had an issue on a proejct with a Sub Default.
The same goes for the public sector issue, short term trend that has only come about due to the current circumstances.
With all due respect, you need to stop putting words in peoples mouths, just to try and prove you are right or all knowing.
Where's the plane boss?
Top

Sun, 2011-09-18 17:18
#23
Rafael Davila
Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3554
Izam,
http://www.warnercon.com/articles/Article%209%20-%20Handling%20Out-of-
Sequence%20Progress.pdf
Frequently some specifications prescribe the option to be retained logic but fail to prescribe a removal of the out-of-sequnce logic.
This have led the rookie or unwary to believe it is not necessary to verify logic and even that the retained logic is the always
correct fix.
You have to select an option otherwise the software cannot finish the schedule run. Yes it can be either, hey you cannot select
none. I have no issue with either option but with the non removal of the out of sequence.
I do what the author says if retained logic is mandated by the specs then I temporarily move to progress override as this makes it
easier to follow the continuity without the software splitting the activity. Then after removing the out of sequence logic I change
the option to retained logic. Comparing split activities versus non split gives you the clue if the software is incapable of identifying
the event. I do not agree with the author that removing out of sequence is difficult, that confronting the PM and the reviewer is
an excuse to avoid doing the right thing. You got to confront the reviewer if he is wrong, this without personal attacks, go against
the issue, there is nothing wrong with it, on the contrary.
I have even been in the situation where the CPM reviewer sequester the CPM and does not allow the Contractor to make any logic
adjustments, to make any change in plans. This forces the Contractor to use two schedules, one for his planning and another to
avoid confrontation with the reviewer. I have seen so many specifications that are so wrong that it seems like an incapable
specifier took a bunch of specifications and made a bomb with it. This is aggravated when the reviewer is even less
knowledgeable than the bomb maker. I have seen reviewers that do not understand how out of sequence can fool the logic no
matter which algorithm you choose or which is prescribed and to make it worse do not allow the contractor to make changes in
the schedule to appropriately correct the situation.
Thomas,
Fantasy Island is in the Carribean not in the Pacific, it is the US territory of Puerto Rico.
Best regards,
Rafael
Top

Sun, 2011-09-18 13:43
#24
Izam Zakaria
Offline
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 221
Groups: GPC Malaysia,Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
I don't want to be Writer here, straight to the point I would recommend you to use progress override.....you have to practice first
then later you will understand it......
Top

Sun, 2011-09-18 13:43
#25
Izam Zakaria
Offline
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 221
Groups: GPC Malaysia,Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
I don't want to be Writer here, straight to the point I would recommend you to use progress override.....you have to practice first
then later you will understand it......
Top

Sun, 2011-09-18 12:00
#26
Rafael Davila
Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3554
Thomas,
Still the statistic is quite disproportionate no matter how you distribute the defaults by CG and subcontractors, even if it refers to
all defaults by subcontractors and none by general contractors, is like the general contractors procurement for subcontractors in
Los Angeles area is bad, very bad.
Would you say that if a subcontractor performs 4 jobs a year on average he would default on one job? Or is it that some
subcontractors default on every job? You should consider hiring subcontractors from out of state if locals are so bad.
Mohd,
The answer is simple, either choice can play against any of the parties, the correct way is not to assume you are on the safe side
with either option, no matter what you got to make sure the logic remain unchanged. At time remains unchanged if you choose
retained logic algorithm and at times it remains unchanged it you choose progress override. Saying that one is a better choice
above the other is wrong. Even the gurus complained that the assumption that retained logic is correct is in fact wrong
assumption. A sample job with only one out of sequence activity is enough to prove it.
Good scheduling practice calls for the attention to details, any call for sloppiness shall be called to be wrong, you got to do your
homework is the correct answer. Out of sequence can fool in unsuspecting ways the computations that no single algorithm is
correct, each is only an assumption to let the software identify such occurrence.
Some software are adding a third option to handle out of sequence events, I believe P6 is one of them, the new option is as
unpredictable as the traditional two.
Best regards,
Rafael
Top
Sun, 2011-09-18 05:44
#27
Mohd Anjum
Offline
Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 21
Groups: Middle East Planning and Controlling, Pinoy Planning Planet

Community,PlanningForce, Power, Energy & Utilities
Abdullah,
I m sure u didn't got your answer....from the above replied post.....
After looking the forum subject... thought i could get something to learn but i m really depressed people here instead of sharing
and clearing the doubts....they keep on talking about what i don't know.
they make the answer so complicated that the viewer/member will get confused and would insist on thinking what the question
is.
Thomas and rafael you guys are gr8........
Sorry abdullah i couldn't help you ....
Top

Sun, 2011-09-18 05:17
#28
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 23
Groups: None
How in the world does 1991 compare to 2011? Unemployment at record highs. Home foreclosure at a record high. Federal
spending on infrastructure lower than it should be. GCs that normally only bid on 50mil plus jobs bidding on 3.5mil jobs. We
have a market flooded by builders trying to survive by low balling public sector projects. Note, I said GCs and Subs and not Just
GCs. Obviously the majority of issues are subs defaulting.
I am in the greater Los Angeles area. 1 in 4 projects are suffering from either a GC default or Sub Default. I am currently
managing 4 projects for one customer and we had a roofing sub default just two weeks ago. They provided all the documents we
requested and they were checked out.
Bonding does not prevent default, they insure when some one defaults and not all bonding companies are equal. They are trying
to survive with less staff like everyone else.
I would search the internet and provide relevant links, however this is something happening now that no one wants to talk about.
As far as who is to blame? Let me provide a list
1. The low bid system is a failure and only encourages people that make mistakes getting jobs.
2. Little or no pre qualification required for 9/10 jobs with public entities.
3. Public Entities are opposite of smart enough to think they can actually get jobs delivered for allot less money than they paid 2
or 3 years ago.
4. GCs that are not really qualified to build certain types of buildings, good bonding or not, are bidding on everything.
5. Subs coming from the housing market trying to build stuff they are not qualified to do.
6. Owners in general using the economy as a weapon or excuse for not having to pay for delays or extra work.
7. Public entity personnel purposefully delaying projects in hope of another project coming up or to prevent getting laid off.
8. GCs and Subs using sub par labor to save a buck.
Your sarcasm that scheduling has anything to do with a garbage economy is not appreciated.
So what district do you work in? Fantasy Island?
Btw, can I barrow your time machine? I would like to go back to 1991 knowing what I know now.
Top

Sat, 2011-09-17 13:58
#29
Rafael Davila
Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3554

Thomas,
The market is flooded with incompetent contractors atm low balling every job possible in the public sector to the point that about
25% or more of the public sector projects are facing GC or Subcontractor default.
Wow, your statement about contract defauls is atonishing. In what jurisdiction do you work? Shall we blame your scheduling
practice, the Contractors or the Owners who know little about good procurement practices? Who is to blame for such bad
performance in your jurisdiction?
Here even municipalities require Payment and Performance Bonds, this is our basic inmmuniztion vaccine against default. Even if
our municipalities have 10X of what the Federal Government has on their jobs it would amount to about a 1%; 25% would be
225 defaults for every 900, it is 225X our Federal Government experience. And I call them the bad guys.
http://gao.justia.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/1992/4/construction-contracts-ggd-92-
From:
69/GGD-92-69-full-report.pdf
Best regards,
Rafael
Top

Fri, 2011-09-16 22:12
#30
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 23
Groups: None
I provided a solid example of how out of sequence can occur and where retained logic is more than adequate for providing a
proper forecast without needing to fix it. Fixing out of sequence is very time consuming and on large projects simply a burden
that results in over priced services. If a person is on salary it is a good way to justify allot of extra time for a single project.
When we manage a CPM network, we make the changes that make sense and that are needed to provide a reasonably accurte
estimate of performance and float consumption. I peronsally have serviced the same hard bid contractor for over 10 years and
30+ projects using this approach and not once has my customer been assessed LDs. More over they have recovered enough
money via delay negotiations to justify my continued participation for those 10 years. We have always used retained logic and we
always provide a performance baseline to prove we have a viable plan vs. performance.
Competent contractors with good schedulers cannot deny when a delay occurs and input of performance / actual progress will
show just that in an adequate schedule.
I can only formulate an opinion based on what has worked for my customers in the real world and kept me in business.
The market is flooded with incompetent contractors atm low balling every job possible in the public sector to the point that about
25% or more of the public sector projects are facing GC or Subcontractor default.
Again, scheduling is never going to be perfectly correct, anymore than an estimate is the right number. Scheduling is a method
for estimating time and estimates by their very nature are wrong and based on assumptions at some level. This will be true
regardless of when the estimating is performed.
I think we can agree to disagree, for the most part.
Top

Fri, 2011-09-16 19:05
#31
Rafael Davila
Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3554
I DID SAY THAT NOT ALL HAS TO BE FIXED FOR THE SCHEDULE TO BE AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE.
Yes this is true when the assumption by the selected algorithm matches reality, the issue on requiring to eliminate all out-of-
sequence flag is that it makes sure all are fixed. Fixing out-of-sequence flag is easy it is good practice to fix them all.
The real problem comes when an incompetent CPM reviewer does not allows the contractor to make changes in the CPM unless it
is specifically required by them. If the intention of the contract is to make the contractor responsible for the schedule, for the
delivery on time, then any clause that prevents him from control the means and methods, to make any changes in the schedule
he deems reasonable at any time is in conflict with the general intent of the contract. General intent shall prevail. In most
contract where time is of the essence the Contractor is responsible for the schedule, the Owner has a right to be informed of the
contractor plans but not to obstruct his control on the means and methods. A change in plan do not relieve the contractor of his
responsibility.
Yes no contractor places a delay claim knowing it is his fault, better try to negotiate in a friendly manner, the problem is when
the owner creates the delays and want to take advantage of the contract clauses he purposely wrote.
Yes few incompetent contractors exist, they do not last much, gravity takes care of them, but somehow a few manage to survive
for some time.
Yes contemporaneous delay claims and resolution performed on time even when based on not perfect assumptions on what will
happen in the future is better than a late forensic analysis after the facts, in general after the facts analysis will yield more precise
results but rarely a better and more economical solution. Fortunately contemporaneous methods are also 100x easier to apply
than the so called forensic methods.
Top

Fri, 2011-09-16 15:51
#32
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 23
Groups: None
Enforcing wrong logic is better than ignoring logic. Ignoring logic is a complete violation of the CPM calculation.
Again NEVER SAID THAT OUT OF SEQUENCE SHOULD NOT BE FIXED. I DID SAY THAT NOT ALL HAS TO BE FIXED FOR THE
SCHEDULE TO BE AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE.
Your assumption that all reported out of sequence items on a schedule report have to be fixed in order for the schedule to be
compliant is wrong and misleading.
It is always better to settle delays as you go and waiting to till the end increases the risk of litigation. The only people that win
when claims go to litigation are the lawyers.
I have worked for both contractors and owners. I can say with out a doubt that owners are the problem more often than not and
cause more delays than a competent contractor ever could, even if trying.
Top

Fri, 2011-09-16 15:43
#33
Rafael Davila
Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 3554
I DID SAY THAT RETAINED LOGIC IS MORE CORRECT BECAUSE IT ADHERES TO THE RULES OF CPM BY NOT IGNORING
LOGIC. - But it can enforce wrong logic that was made wrong by the out-of-sequence events, your statement should be
RETAINED LOGIC IS LESS INCORRECT, saying is more correct, say 60% correct is misleading. Do your homework and fix the
logic even if you work for free, ironically frequently those who overcharge are the most lazy. Here the Gururus are correct.
Whether the claim for delay is made now or at the end of the project, it is still a claim. -The methodologies for claim might vary if
made on time contemporaneous methods hold versus if at the end contemporaneous methods might not hold, especially if the
logic was wrong as in the case of out-of-sequence and not fixed on time, at the end it is too late to argue 6 month ago my plan
was another thing.
Top

Fri, 2011-09-16 15:43
#34
Thomas Frey
Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 23
Groups: None
The schedule is both a management and claim tool. Whether the claim for delay is made now or at the end of the project, it is
still a claim. Schedules are not just for planning what you need to do now, they are also tools for quantifying changes to scope
and forecasting that impact. The smartest most professional and proactive owners will negotiate delays as they happen so that
any risk of a claim at the end is mitigated. Owners that refuse to entertain claims until the end are the ones that have the most
claims that end up in litigation.
Any management team that assumes all their players are intentialy trying to fool them is being dense. As a consultant that has
worked with Primavera software since the 80s, I would not bother to waste my time attempting to create schedules just to fool
someone. Takes too much time and effort to build a schedule in the first place that I would price myself out of business trying to
make schedules just to fool people. Maybe people that collect welfare salary have time for BS like this.
Just because an Agency or any entity has a scheduling spec that requires a specific tool or outlines parameters for building a
schedule, is in no way directly proportional to wisdom. 99% of specifications are written by outside consultants and it is up to the
entity to enforce them and 99% of the time they lack the skill to even do that mostly correctly.
Your example of how progress override supposedly fixes an issue is over simplified. In a real schedule, progress override will
more times than not will create bigger errors by ignoring logic. All to often out of sequence occurs because the contractor is
doing everything possible to work around an owner issue. You start framing and cannot finish because you find a location that is
not designed correctly. To offset this issue, you start insulation and drywall and then discover that you have areas you cannot
dry wall yet because the mechanical / electrical cannot finish due to incomplete design, so then you start painting where you can.
Progress override will ignore the valid logic that you have to finish framing and rough-in to finish drywall and finish drywall to
finish painting.

Implementation Demystification - 10 Keys To A Successful P6 Implementation White Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Implementation Demystification - 10 Keys To A Successful P6 Implementation White Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Activities

An activity is said to be critical if its duration cannot be extended

Notice that there are three paths through the network:

Path A-C B-D A-D

The duration of the project is determined by the longest path - D

Progress Override or Retained Logic

Sun, 2010-05-16 03:43

Abdallah Abu Ghaz...

Joined: 3 Dec 2009

Groups: Building Works, GPC United Arab Emirates

 Login or register to post comments

Joined: 19 Jan 2004

Groups: Airports & Aviation Projects, GPC United Arab Emirates

Scheduling Calculation mode

Network on progress (Retained logic)

Network on progress (Progress override)

 Login or register to post comments

Joined: 24 Mar 2009

Groups: Building Information Modelling,Content Moderators,GPC Applicants, GPC United

-True. Very true. Other planners, take note.

 Login or register to post comments

Joined: 15 Sep 2011

 Login or register to post comments

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Groups: Spider Project Team

 Login or register to post comments

Joined: 15 Sep 2011

 Login or register to post comments

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Groups: Spider Project Team

500cm rock excavation

If activity starts on Monday:

Monday =>> Resource 1 will produce 100 cm

Tuesday =>> Resource 1 will produce 100 cm

Wednesday =>> Resource 1 will produce 100 cm

Wednesday =>> Resource 2 will produce 150 cm

Thursday =>> Resource 2 will produce 50 cm in about 3 hours

Activity will take 3 days 3 hours.

If activity starts on Wednesday :

Wednesday =>> Resource 1 will produce 100 cm

Wednesday =>> Resource 2 will produce 150 cm

Thursday =>> Resource 2 will produce 150 cm

Friday =>> Resource 2 will produce 100 cm in about 7 hours

Activity will take 2 days 7 hours.

 Login or register to post comments

Joined: 15 Sep 2011

 Login or register to post comments

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Groups: Spider Project Team

Of course we can agree to disagree, it is obvious we have opposing points of view.

 Login or register to post comments

Joined: 15 Sep 2011

Like I said before, we can agree to disagree.

 Login or register to post comments

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Groups: Spider Project Team

 Login or register to post comments

Joined: 1 Mar 2004

Groups: Spider Project Team

Always do your best.

 Login or register to post comments

Joined: 15 Sep 2011

 Login or register to post comments